The case of Hopkins Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Cleary et al., 1935, revolved around the issue of whether a federal savings and loan association could be taxed by a state under its intangible personal property tax laws. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hopkins Federal Savings & Loan Association, stating that such associations were instrumentalities of the federal government and thus immune from state taxation under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. This decision was based on an interpretation that these institutions served public purposes similar to national banks, which had previously been deemed exempt from certain types of state taxation. Therefore, it was concluded that states cannot levy taxes on federally chartered savings and loan associations without explicit permission from Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hopkins Federal Savings & Loan Association et al. v. Cleary et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Maryland law requiring savings and loan associations to pay interest on dormant accounts was misguided. The dissenters believed that this requirement constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment rights of these institutions. They contended that such laws should be considered as regulatory measures rather than revenue-raising ones, which would make them subject to different constitutional standards. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "dormant" accounts and suggested it could lead to arbitrary enforcement by state officials.